The Influence of Society 5.0 on the Social Interaction Space of Unimal Architecture Students: A Study on the Personal Space of Architecture
Keywords:
Personal Space1, Third Place2, Informal Spaces3, Social Interaction4, Social Interaction Space5.Abstract
Looking for informal spaces off campus to meet learning needs that involve mental and intellectual aspects. The existence of this informal space is not only a temporary waiting area but also a space that facilitates social interaction connected to academic activities. This study examines the space for social interaction in the campus environment and adaptation to the era of Society 5.0. This research involves architecture students as research subjects, considering their activities and needs that involve mental and intellectual aspects. In this context, the personal space proposed by Robert Sommet and the concept of third place proposed by Oldenburg become the theoretical basis for analyzing the space of student social interaction. These two ideas will collaborate to reveal the influence of Era 5.0 on students' social interactions in fulfilling their mental and intellectual qualities in learning outside the classroom. The era of Society 5.0 demands the expansion of campus interaction space and the integration of technology to accommodate students' mental and intellectual growth. In conclusion, social interaction spaces on campus are essential in shaping relationships between individuals, facilitating collaboration, and creating a positive social climate. Students are looking for informal spaces off campus to meet learning needs that involve mental and intellectual aspects. Adaptation of the interaction space order in campus architecture and technology integration is essential in facing the era of Society 5.0. A structured and supportive social interaction space can help maintain students' mental and intellectual balance.
Downloads
References
Aiello, J. R., & Baum, A. (2016). Workplace Environments: Contributions to the Health and Functioning of Adults in the Workplace. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. Oxford University Press, 283–301.
Anselm L. Strauss. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press.
Aulia, S. A. S., Yudana, G., & Aliyah, I. (2020). Kajian Karakteristik Koridor Jalan Slamet Riyadi Sebagai Ruang Interaksi Sosial Kota Surakarta Berdasarkan Teori Good City Form. Desa-Kota, 2(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.20961/desa-kota.v2i1.32648.14-30
Hakim, R., & Utomo, H. (2003). Komponen perancangan Arsitektur Lansekap: Prinsip unsur dan aplikasi desain. Penerbit Bumi Aksara.
Hall, M. R. (1966). Edward T . Hall : Proxemic Theory , 1966 By Nina Brown. 4–7. Hayduk, L. A. (2001). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4),
–477.
J.J. Gibson. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin. Kamal, I., Firmansyah, E. A., Rafiah, K. K., Rahmawan, A. F., & Rejito, C. (2020).
Pembelajaran di Era 4.0. November, 265–276.
Kosslyn, S. M., G.Ganis, & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Mental imagery: Some basic questions. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences. MIT Press.
Larice, Michael and Macdonald, Elizabeth. 2007. The Urban Design Reader, second edition, Routledge, NY
Margawati, M. (2014). MEMAHAMI PERSEPSI VISUAL : SUMBANGAN Pendahuluan
Peristilahan. V(01), 47–63.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.
Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community.
Prof. Dr. M. Syaom Barliana, M.Pd., M.T., I.A.I., D. C. (2015). Arsitektur, Urbanitas, dan Pendidikan Budaya Berkota. Deepublish.
Purwanto, E. (2012). Pola Seting Ruang Komunal Mahasiswa Arsitektur Fakultas Teknik Universitas Diponegoro. In Seminar Nasional SERAP 2 -Arsitektur UGM (pp. 341– 360).
Rahayu, K. N. S. (2021). Sinergi pendidikan menyongsong masa depan indonesia di era society 5.0. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, 2(1), 87–100.
Saraswaty, R., & Nasution, A. M. (2016). Kajian Mental Image Mahasiswa Arsitektur Terhadap Arsitektur Dengan Metode Pendekatan Semiotik. Educational Building, 2(2), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.24114/eb.v2i2.4394
Suyudhi, H., & Hadiwono, A. (2020). Rumah Seni Ruang Terapi. Jurnal Sains, Teknologi, Urban, Perancangan, Arsitektur (Stupa), 2(2), 2079. https://doi.org/10.24912/stupa.v2i2.8592
Tamariska, S. R., & Ekomadyo, A. S. (2017). ‘Place-Making’ Ruang Interaksi Sosial Kampung Kota’. Jurnal Koridor, 8(2), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.32734/koridor.v8i2.1345
Teknowijoyo, F. (2022). Relevansi Industri 4.0 dan Society 5.0 Terhadap Pendidikan Di Indonesia. Educatio, 16(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.29408/edc.v16i2.4492
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
